SGC MOV Validation: Why Documents Are Marked Invalid

A School Governance Council (SGC) is counted as functional only on the documents that a division validator marks valid. In the 2026 roll-out of the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for public elementary schools, a composite team of the Schools Division Office (SDO) opens each school’s means of verification (MOVs) and ticks Valid or Invalid for each, and the division’s sheet turns those ticks into the school’s status. The procedure is in the User Guide, Volume 2: Validate and Monitor, which is Enclosure No. 1 to Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 of September 22, 2026.

The guide gives validators six tests of a valid MOV and eight named errors. Most of them trace to DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022: the council’s name, its officers and their titles, notice, quorum, minutes and signed decisions. A few are the guide’s own, and a council that follows only the order can still fail them. The largest is the signature rule: a resolution counts only when the voting members and the School Head have signed it by hand.

The rules below are those in force on November 13, 2026. The form closes on March 31, 2027, the division’s sheet on April 30, 2027. What the tool asks, indicator by indicator, is in SGC Functionality Assessment Tool: Indicators and MOVs, and the steps for preparing the folders and answering the form are in How to Submit the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool.

Key findings

• The division validates; no one else may change a mark. The SDO SGC Composite Team validates every submitted MOV on the SDO Validation Sheet. The Regional Office (RO) may spot-check, but “they are not permitted to make changes to the validation status” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 25; DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 5).
• Six tests decide validity. An MOV must pertain to the SGC, follow the order’s organizational structure, fall within the coverage period, show that the SGC “spearheaded or participated in the activity”, contain “complete documentation”, and be “the correct document uploaded for the specific indicator” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 6).
• Eight errors have names, and a validator may pick one as the remark. They are SGC Name Error, Other School Organizations’ MOVs, Organizational Structure, Wrong Designation, Date Outside Coverage, Insufficient Report/Documentation, Signature Issues and Wrong MOV uploaded (Vol. 2, pp. 7 to 9 and 14).
• Twelve minimum MOVs carry the score. The minimum MOVs of the seven primary sub-indicators and of the five indicators without sub-indicators “serve as the basis for scoring”, and “A school that obtains a score of 10 or above is classified as functional”. Every other MOV “must also be validated even if they do not carry corresponding scores” (Vol. 2, pp. 12 and 13).
• A row can show nine statuses. Four are results: Functional, Partially Functional, Data Unsupported and No Existing SGC. Five mean the row is not finished: Unvalidated, Incomplete Validation, Multiple Submissions Detected, Marking Error and Validator’s Remarks Required (Vol. 2, p. 17).
• A correction needs the division’s leave. A school replaces a file only “if the SDO SGC Focal person allows the updating of MOVs”, in five steps that end with a request to revalidate (Vol. 2, pp. 20 to 23; Encl. No. 5).
• The dates are fixed to May 2027. Duplicate submissions can be deleted until March 31, 2027, the day the form closes. The division and regional sheets close on April 30, 2027. Division certifications are due on May 5, 2027 and regional certifications on May 14, 2027 (Encl. No. 8).

Who validates SGC MOVs, and what they open

The validators. Each division forms an SDO SGC Composite Team chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent. The memorandum’s list of roles sets it at “three (3) to five (5) members, including the SDO SGC Focal Person”; its process flow says “three (3) to six (6) members, including the SDO SGC Focal person and the Public Schools Division Superintendent” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 5 and 3). Both allow “representatives from relevant functional units”. The work sits with the School Governance and Operations Division (SGOD), whose place in the division is in Schools Division Office Functions: OSDS, CID and SGOD.

Their instruction. The division is to “Follow User Guide Volume 2: Validate and Monitor in validating and monitoring submitted Means of Verification (MOVs) in accordance with the qualifications and standards mandated under DepEd Order No. 26, s. 2022” (Encl. No. 5, part B, item 3). The guide is therefore how a validator judges, and the order is the standard the guide points to.

Their tool. The SDO Validation Sheet “serves as an official tool used by the SDO SGC Composite Team to verify and validate the accuracy and completeness of data submitted by schools through Google Forms” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 10). For each school it carries the link to the school’s Google Drive folder, the date of validation, and a column for each MOV the school reported.

What a validator opens. The link leads to the school’s main folder, “SGC MOVs (2026 Roll-Out)”, and inside it the labeled folders that keep minimum MOVs apart from additional ones, with one more for the Validity Form. A validator who cannot open the folder has nothing to mark valid. The guide gives no status for a link that does not open, so check the sharing setting before submitting; the folder steps are in How to Submit the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool.

The Validity Form. With it the council and the School Head “confirm that the documents submitted as our means of verification (MOVs) are genuine”, and accept that the division, the region and the Central Office “may make any inquiries which they consider necessary” (Validity Form, 2026). DepEd’s form has lines for the Designated Co-Chairperson, the Elected Co-Chairperson and the Secretary under “Prepared by”, and for the School Head or Principal under “Approved by”. Volume 1 of the guide says it is “signed by the SGC Officer and the School Head” (p. 41). A form with all four signatures satisfies both.

Field visits. The division’s team “reviews the information and the MOVs. If necessary, field visits may be conducted to verify the accuracy and authenticity of submissions” (Encl. No. 3). The tool tells every council to keep its MOVs “complete and readily available during data validation of the SDOs and/or BHROD-SED”, the Bureau of Human Resource and Organizational Development-School Effectiveness Division (Encl. No. 2). Keep the signed originals in the Secretary’s file, where the order puts them (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.M, Storage of Documents).

The six tests of a valid MOV

The guide answers the validator’s first question, whether an MOV is valid, in six lines (Vol. 2, p. 6). The MOV is valid if it:

1. “Clearly pertains to the SGC as mandated in DO 26, s. 2022.”
2. “Follows the prescribed organizational structure under DepEd Order No. 26 s. 2022.”
3. “Is within the required school year/coverage period.”
4. “Shows clear evidence that the SGC spearheaded or participated in the activity.”
5. “Contains complete documentation (signatures, quorum, attendance, photos, resolutions, etc.).”
6. “Is the correct document uploaded for the specific indicator.”

The eight named errors are the same tests seen from the failing side. Set beside the tests, each error is a failure of one or two of them:

The guide prints the tests on page 6 and the errors on pages 7 to 9 and does not pair them. The pairing follows from their wording.

Format is not a test. DepEd’s sample formats for notices, minutes, resolutions and reports “may be modified and contextualized in accordance with the preferences of the SGCs”, and each is “provided solely as a reference to ensure that all significant elements aligned with the Functionality indicators are duly captured and not overlooked, without affecting the validation process of the MOVs” (Vol. 2, p. 5). A council’s own layout passes. A council’s own layout that drops an element the tests look for, such as the quorum line or the signature block, does not. The samples are at tinyurl.com/SGCMOVTemp.

The eight errors that make an MOV invalid

The guide calls them “the common errors” and sets a Valid column beside an Invalid column for each (Vol. 2, pp. 7 to 9). The checker below holds both columns word for word. Name the kind of document you are about to upload, answer each check, and it names the errors a validator would mark.

Checker

Would this document pass validation?

The eight common errors the User Guide names. Hold one document in mind and answer each check.

The MOV is valid if it:

• Clearly pertains to the SGC as mandated in DO 26, s. 2022.
• Follows the prescribed organizational structure under DepEd Order No. 26 s. 2022.
• Is within the required school year/coverage period.
• Shows clear evidence that the SGC spearheaded or participated in the activity.
• Contains complete documentation (signatures, quorum, attendance, photos, resolutions, etc.).
• Is the correct document uploaded for the specific indicator.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 6

The document isAn SGC resolutionMinutes of a meetingA notice of meetingA report or documentation of an activityAnother document (a certificate, list, chart, plan or letter)

Play the eight checksClear answers

NameWhose it isStructureDesignationsDateCompletenessSignaturesRight file

SGC Name ErrorError 1 of 8

Does the document call the council the “School Governance Council” wherever it names it?

YesNo

Valid

• The correct name School Governance Council (SGC) is consistently used in documents, resolutions, minutes, and reports.

Invalid

• The organization is labeled as “School Governing Council” instead of School Governance Council.
• The MOV refers to a different organization.

Before uploadingRead the letterhead, the title, the body and the signature block: an old template may still say “Governing”. Use one of the two name formats of DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022 throughout.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 7

Other School Organizations’ MOVsError 2 of 8

Does the document show that the council itself convened, approved, led or co-led what it records?

YesNo

Valid

• The document clearly shows that the SGC convened, approved, led, or co-led the activity.

Invalid

• MOVs are from PTA, SSG, or other committees and are presented as SGC evidence.
• The document does not show SGC involvement.

Before uploadingA paper of the PTA, the learner government or a school committee does not become the council’s by being uploaded. Where the council acted with another body, the document must say what the council did.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 7

Organizational StructureError 3 of 8

Do the members who sign it follow the council’s composition under DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022?

YesNo

Valid

• The structure aligns with the prescribed SGC composition.

Invalid

• The SGC structure does not follow the composition required under DO 26 s. 2022.
• Members or positions are inconsistent with the guidelines.

Before uploadingCheck the list against the order: a Designated and an Elected Co-Chairperson, an Elected Secretary, and seven to fifteen voting members in all. A President, a Treasurer or an Auditor is a sign of another body’s template.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 7

Wrong DesignationError 4 of 8

Is the School Head named as School Head (never “Chairman”), are the officers given the order’s titles, and does the document say who prepared it?

YesNo

Valid

• The School Head is correctly designated.
• Co-Chairpersons and members follow the official structure under DO 26 s. 2022.
• The preparer/author is clearly indicated.

Invalid

• The School Head is labeled as “Chairman.”
• The document does not specify who prepared the report.
• SGC designations do not match policy.

Before uploadingThe council is led by two Co-Chairpersons; the School Head is beside the council, not its chair. Put “Prepared by” and a name on every report, set of minutes, plan, list and resolution.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 8

Date Outside CoverageError 5 of 8

Did the activity it records take place on June 17, 2022 or later?

YesNo

Valid

• The activities was conducted June 17, 2022 onwards.

Invalid

• The activity was conducted in 2018, 2019, 2020, or 2021 (outside the required assessment period).

Before uploadingJune 17, 2022 is the date of DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022. Volume 1 of the guide draws its line later, at documents “from School Year 2022–2023 onward”, which opened on August 22, 2022: a document dated from that day meets both. A paper of the earlier council does not count, however good.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 8

Insufficient Report/DocumentationError 6 of 8

Asked here of minutes and of reports, the two kinds of document the guide’s lines describe.

Valid

• The report clearly explains: What was done; When and where it was done; Who participated; What decisions were made
• Complete minutes and signed attendance.
• Photos or supporting documents are attached.

Invalid

• No clear description of what the SGC did.
• No proof the SGC spearheaded the activity.
• No photos attached (when applicable).
• Minutes of meeting are incomplete.
• No quorum specified.
• No signed attendance sheet attached.

Before uploadingScan the signed attendance sheet into the same PDF as the minutes, and state the quorum in the minutes themselves: the share of the members present, and that a quorum was reached.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 8

Signature IssuesError 7 of 8

Is it signed in ink (wet signatures) by the voting members and by the School Head?

YesNo

Valid

• All required signatories must sign the document. Electronic signatures may be accepted for all documents except resolutions. Resolutions must be duly approved and signed by the voting members and the School Head using wet signatures.

Invalid

• No signatures.
• Incomplete signatures.
• Resolutions not signed by voting members and School Head.

Before uploadingFor a resolution being adopted, print it, have the voting members and the School Head sign by hand, then scan it. A typed name or a pasted image of a signature on a resolution fails this check. A signature added to an earlier resolution carries the date it is made, never the date of adoption.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 9

Wrong MOV uploadedError 8 of 8

Is it the document this indicator asks for, uploaded to this indicator’s folder?

YesNo

Valid

• The MOV directly supports the specific indicator being assessed.

Invalid

• The uploaded file does not correspond to the required indicator.
• A completely unrelated document was submitted.

Before uploadingOpen each folder after uploading and read the file against the tool’s line for that indicator. A resolution on one subject does not serve an indicator that asks for a resolution on another.

User Guide, Volume 2, p. 9

Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 (September 22, 2026), Enclosure No. 1: SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Volume 2, pp. 6 to 9; DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022

For each error, the sections below give the rule in DO 026, s. 2022 that a valid document satisfies, what passes and fails, and the fix before submitting.

1. SGC Name Error

The test. The name School Governance Council “is consistently used in documents, resolutions, minutes, and reports”. A document fails when the body is labeled “School Governing Council”, or when it “refers to a different organization” (Vol. 2, p. 7).

The rule behind it. “For identification purposes, the SGC shall carry a name which shall include the name of the school”, and the order gives two patterns: “School Governance Council of Jose Rizal Elementary School, or Jose Rizal Elementary School-School Governance Council” (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.G). A council that existed before the order had to change a name that did not conform: “it shall be renamed accordingly for the next SY” (Part V.H.1, item d).

Why it happens. “School Governing Council” is the older name. DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015 uses it. The test is strict about a single word, and the guide’s word is “consistently”: one resolution with the old name in its title can fail while the rest pass.

Before submitting. Search every file for “Governing”. Check the letterhead, the title, the body, the signature block and the attendance sheet’s heading. Use the order’s pattern, with the school’s name, throughout. The guide tests for the words “School Governance Council”; the order also requires the school’s name in the council’s name, and a document that carries both meets each.

2. Other School Organizations’ MOVs

The test. A valid document “clearly shows that the SGC convened, approved, led, or co-led the activity”. It fails when “MOVs are from PTA, SSG, or other committees and are presented as SGC evidence”, or when it “does not show SGC involvement” (Vol. 2, p. 7).

The rule behind it. The council is a body of its own. It “shall not replace the Parents Teacher Association (PTA), Supreme Pupil/Student Government, School Planning Team (SPT), Alumni Association, Child Protection Committee (CPC), and other existing school committees/associations/organizations” (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V, General Purpose), and it “shall act as one body and not individually in performing its functions and responsibilities” (Part V.M, Limitations of SGC Authority, item 2). A council whose members are also PTA officers has not met when the PTA board met. The PTA’s minutes record the PTA’s meeting.

What passes. Many indicators are about the council’s work with other bodies: a meeting with the School Planning Team (FI2), with stakeholders on their programs (FI4, FI6), or an assembly the council attended (FI9). The document for each is still the council’s: minutes that the council’s Secretary kept and its Co-Chairpersons approved, or the council’s own report of what was raised. The fourth of the six tests accepts evidence that the SGC “spearheaded or participated”, so a joint meeting counts when the paper shows the council’s part in it: who attended for the council, what the council proposed or agreed.

What the tool itself allows. A few MOVs are another body’s paper by design, all of them additional MOVs: a “Copy of the Minutes of Meetings from school committees and organizations” under FI4B, a document “released by the school management / School Head” under FI5A, and pages of the SIP, AIP, SRC and SMEA under FI6. The error applies where another organization’s document stands in for one the tool asks of the council.

Before submitting. For each file, ask whose document it is. If its heading, its presiding officer and its signatories belong to the PTA, the learner government, the faculty club or a school committee, it is theirs. How the council relates to those bodies is in School Governance Council, PTA and Partners: A Guide.

3. Organizational Structure

The test. “The structure aligns with the prescribed SGC composition.” It fails when the structure “does not follow the composition required under DO 26 s. 2022”, or when “Members or positions are inconsistent with the guidelines” (Vol. 2, p. 7).

The rule behind it. The order prescribes both the positions and the count:

What fails. The guide gives no examples. These follow from the order: an organizational chart with a President, Vice President, Treasurer or Auditor; a list of five voting members, or of eighteen; a roster that seats the School Head as a member or an officer; a teacher shown as Elected Co-Chairperson, since school personnel are internal stakeholders (Part III, item 10); non-voting members on a council that has not filled seven voting seats.

Where it shows. The error is easiest to see in the organizational chart, the official list of members and the induction certificates of FI1B and FI1C. It also shows in any signature block: a resolution signed by a “Treasurer” tells the validator that the council is not built as the order requires.

Before submitting. Compare the official list of members with the order’s table above, then compare every other document with the list. If the council itself is not built as the order requires, a new chart does not cure it. The cure is to complete the membership and hold the election the order prescribes, which School Governance Council (SGC): Complete DepEd Guide sets out.

4. Wrong Designation

The test. Three things make a document valid here: “The School Head is correctly designated”, “Co-Chairpersons and members follow the official structure under DO 26 s. 2022”, and “The preparer/author is clearly indicated”. It fails when the School Head is labeled “Chairman”, when “The document does not specify who prepared the report”, or when “SGC designations do not match policy” (Vol. 2, p. 8).

The rule behind it. The order’s titles are exact: Designated Co-Chairperson, Elected Co-Chairperson, Secretary, voting council members and non-voting council members (DO 026, s. 2022, Parts V.C to V.F). The council has no Chairman, President, Vice President or Adviser. The School Head has tasks toward the council (Part VI.A) and no title in it.

On the preparer, the order names the officer without requiring a line on the page: the Secretary shall “keep the minutes and all other records of the SGC” and “prepare and file all communications and documents of the SGC” (Part V.E). The requirement that a document say who prepared it is the guide’s. DepEd’s sample formats show one way to meet it: “Prepared by” the SGC Secretary and “Approved by” the Elected and the Designated Co-Chairperson, each with full name and signature.

How it differs from error 3. Organizational Structure is about how the council is built. Wrong Designation is about what a document calls people. A properly built council can still fail on a certificate that names the principal “SGC Chairman”, or on a report nobody signed as preparer.

Before submitting. Use the order’s titles for officers and members, and “School Head” or “School Principal” for the head, as DepEd’s own Validity Form and sample formats do. Put a “Prepared by” line with a name and a signature on every report, set of minutes, plan and list.

5. Date Outside Coverage

The test. Valid: the activity “was conducted June 17, 2022 onwards”. Invalid: “The activity was conducted in 2018, 2019, 2020, or 2021 (outside the required assessment period)” (Vol. 2, p. 8).

The rule behind it. June 17, 2022 is the date of DO 026, s. 2022. The order does not set a period for evidence; it sets when its structure began to apply. Schools with councils were to “adopt the new structure provided herein, in the immediate school year following the implementation of this policy” (Part V.H). A paper from before the order records a body the order has since rebuilt.

Two wordings. Volume 1, written for schools, says “Only Means of Verification (MOVs) produced or created from School Year 2022–2023 onward shall be considered valid” (p. 7). Volume 2, written for validators, uses June 17, 2022. School Year 2022-2023 opened on August 22, 2022 (DepEd Order No. 034, s. 2022, item 2), so the two differ by about two months.

A document dated on or after August 22, 2022 meets both. For one dated between June 17 and August 21, 2022, Volume 2 is what the validator applies; a council that has a later document for the same indicator should use the later one.

What the date is the date of. Volume 2 dates “the activity”; Volume 1 dates when the MOV was “produced or created”. For minutes and resolutions the two are the same day or close to it. A report written in 2026 about an activity of 2021 fails the validator’s test. So does a 2019 document freshly scanned.

No end date is printed. Neither volume sets a last date for an activity. The form closes on March 31, 2027.

Before submitting. Read the date on every page: the date of the meeting, the date of approval above the signatures, the dates beside signatures. The date of the meeting and the date of approval should agree, and both should fall on or after August 22, 2022. A signature added later carries the date it was made.

6. Insufficient Report/Documentation

The test. A valid report “clearly explains” four things: “What was done”, “When and where it was done”, “Who participated” and “What decisions were made”. It comes with “Complete minutes and signed attendance”, and “Photos or supporting documents are attached”. Six failures are listed: “No clear description of what the SGC did”, “No proof the SGC spearheaded the activity”, “No photos attached (when applicable)”, “Minutes of meeting are incomplete”, “No quorum specified” and “No signed attendance sheet attached” (Vol. 2, p. 8).

The rule behind it. The order tells a council what a meeting consists of, and complete minutes follow it. The “Minimum Procedure of Regular Meetings” has ten steps, among them “The Secretary calls for the attendance of members and determines availability of quorum”, “Reading and approval of minutes”, “Approval of the agenda”, “Discussion of the agenda”, “Other matters” and “Setting of schedules for the next meeting and adjournment” (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.M). The Secretary shall “record the attendance of council members during meetings”, and both Co-Chairpersons “ascertain that in all meetings, a quorum is met” (Part V.E).

On quorum the rule is “In order to conduct meetings, there should be a quorum of 50%+1 of the total SGC membership” (Part V.M). The tool’s sub-indicator FI3C words it as “50%+1 of the total SGC voting membership” and asks for “Minutes of Meetings specifying required quorum”. Minutes that state how many voting members the council has, how many were present, and that a quorum was reached, with the same count for the whole membership where there are non-voting members, meet both wordings. DepEd’s sample minutes have a line for it: “Indicate percentage of present attendees and state if quorum is established”.

Where the guide goes beyond the order. The order requires that attendance be recorded. It does not require a sheet that members sign, and it does not mention photographs. The guide requires both: a “signed attendance sheet attached”, and photos “when applicable”. DepEd’s sample attendance sheet is a separate page, filled in by hand, with a signature column.

What “when applicable” covers. The guide does not say when photos apply. The tool’s own lists are the best guide: where “Photo documentation” is named, as an additional MOV under FI9, FI10 and FI11, or where the MOV is “Documentation of the organized / conducted program” (FI10), a file without photos is incomplete. Minutes of a meeting and a resolution are not reports of an activity, and the sample formats for them have no place for photos.

Before submitting. Read each report as a stranger would. Can the reader tell what the council did, on what date, where, who was there and what was decided? For minutes: is the quorum stated, is the signed attendance sheet in the same PDF, and do the minutes run from the call to order to the adjournment?

7. Signature Issues

The test. “All required signatories must sign the document. Electronic signatures may be accepted for all documents except resolutions. Resolutions must be duly approved and signed by the voting members and the School Head using wet signatures.” A document fails with “No signatures”, “Incomplete signatures”, or “Resolutions not signed by voting members and School Head” (Vol. 2, p. 9).

The rule behind it. The order says who signs what:

Where the guide goes beyond the order. On a resolution, it adds two things the order does not have. The first is the School Head’s signature: under the order the head is not a member and signs only the election resolution. The second is the manner of signing: the order is silent on electronic signatures, and the guide bars them on resolutions. The tool adds a third in the wording of FI3A, a resolution “signed by all SGC voting members”, where the order needs “two-thirds (2/3) consensus of all SGC members” for a recommendation to pass.

The order decides whether the council has validly decided. The guide decides whether the validator counts the paper. Nothing in the order makes a resolution adopted by two-thirds and signed electronically less a decision of the council; it is still an invalid MOV in this assessment.

DepEd’s sample resolution shows the block a validator expects: “Prepared by” the Secretary, then “Attested by” every voting member with the organization each represents, both Co-Chairpersons, and the School Principal.

Who the “required signatories” of other documents are. The guide does not list them. The order gives the Co-Chairpersons for notices and other documents of the council, and the sample formats add the Secretary as preparer. For the transmittal letter of FI5A, the sample has the sender’s name and signature. The guide says electronic signatures “may be accepted” on all of these; ink leaves no question.

A resolution some members did not sign. The guide does not say whether a resolution passed by two-thirds and signed only by those in favor has “incomplete signatures”. FI3A’s own words are “signed by all SGC voting members”. For the assessment, choose a resolution that every voting member signed; if the council has none, ask the division’s SGC focal person before submitting.

Before submitting. For a resolution the council is about to adopt, print it, have every voting member and the School Head sign in ink, then scan the signed paper. For one adopted earlier, see “What a correction can be” under How a school corrects an invalid MOV: a signature added later carries its own date. Count the signatures against the official list of voting members. A signature typed in a script font, or an image of a signature pasted into the file, is an electronic signature.

8. Wrong MOV uploaded

The test. “The MOV directly supports the specific indicator being assessed.” It fails when “The uploaded file does not correspond to the required indicator”, or when “A completely unrelated document was submitted” (Vol. 2, p. 9).

The rule behind it. The order does not list documents. The lists are the tool’s (Encl. No. 2), and each folder in the school’s Drive is labeled for one of them. The indicator a document serves is fixed by the tool’s wording.

What fails. A notice of meeting in the folder for FI3A, which asks for a resolution. Photographs of an assembly in the folder for FI9, which asks for the “SGC Report on the issues / concerns raised during school activities / events”. Minutes of an ordinary council meeting in the folder for FI2A, which asks for a meeting “with SPT on SIP / AIP”. A resolution on another subject in the folder for FI8, which asks for one “on involving various sectors”.

The same document for two indicators. The guide has one case of its own: the minutes for FI3B (the agenda), FI3C (the quorum) and FI3D (the minutes themselves) are merged into one file under one label, “FI3B, FI3C, FI3D” (Vol. 1, p. 10). For other indicators the guide neither allows nor forbids it. What a validator checks is whether the file in a folder supports that folder’s indicator, so where one set of minutes serves two indicators, put a copy in each folder.

Before submitting. Open every folder and read its label, then the first page of the file inside. The memorandum’s own instruction to the School Head is a “school-level quality assurance review to verify that all entries and MOVs are accurate, complete, organized, and adhere to required standards” before the single submission (Encl. No. 5, part A, item 3).

Where the order is silent and the guide alone sets the test

A check for each kind of document before submitting

The eight errors apply differently to each kind of paper. The table gathers, for each, what the order requires and what the guide adds. SGC Minutes, Resolutions and Notices: How to Write Them shows how to write each one so that it passes.

The “what must be on it” entries for minutes, reports, plans and lists combine the order’s rules with the guide’s tests and DepEd’s sample formats. The samples may be modified; the elements may not be dropped.

Two cautions apply to every file. The council “shall not disclose confidential data such as learner records and other personal information pursuant to the data privacy act and other related issuances” (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.M, Limitations, item 7), so minutes and reports that go into a shared folder should carry no learner’s grades, health details or case records. And every scanned page should be “clear, legible, and properly scanned” (User Guide, Vol. 1, p. 7): a validator cannot credit a signature that cannot be seen.

How the SDO Validation Sheet turns checkboxes into a status

The guide gives the division five steps (Vol. 2, pp. 10 to 19).

1. Open the sheet. The SDO’s validators get the link from the regional SGC focal person and sign in with “the official Gmail account submitted in the SGC Directory, as only these accounts were granted access by the Central Office”. One column holds the link to each school’s Drive folder; another holds the date of validation, which the validator sets (p. 11).
2. Validate the MOVs. Open each file and tick Valid or Invalid (pp. 12 to 15).
3. Double-check the status. Compare the counts and the status the sheet shows with the ticks made (pp. 16 and 17).
4. Reach the school. Where a school has invalid MOVs “that need to be corrected before the deadline”, the focal person gives technical assistance on “how to update or revise their submission” (p. 18).
5. Revise the status. After the school reports a new upload, “revalidate the new MOVs and update the initial validation input in the validation tool accordingly” (p. 19).

The twelve scored columns

Twelve columns hold “the schools’ submitted/available MOVs to the Primary Sub-indicator Minimum MOVs”: FI1A, FI2A, FI3A, FI4A, FI5A, FI6A and FI11A, and the five indicators that have no sub-indicators, FI7, FI8, FI9, FI10 and FI12. “These 12 MOVs serve as the basis for scoring, and the school’s total score will determine whether it is considered functional” (Vol. 2, p. 12).

The other columns are the additional MOVs of those twelve and the minimum and additional MOVs of the twelve other sub-indicators. They “must also be validated even if they do not carry corresponding scores. These MOVs reflect the advanced practices implemented by the schools and are essential for comprehensive validation” (p. 13). A row in which only some MOVs have been marked reads Incomplete Validation.

Valid, Invalid and the remark

On the sheet, a sub-indicator’s Minimum MOVs column and its Additional MOVs column are followed by one Valid box and one Invalid box (Vol. 2, pp. 13 and 15). Three cases arise.

Source: User Guide, Vol. 2, pp. 13 to 15.

In the third case, a faulty additional MOV does not cost the point. The guide’s reason is that “compliance with the core minimum requirements is acknowledged while providing clear guidance on the necessary improvements to the supporting documents” (p. 15). The guide does not describe the reverse case. The point rests on the minimum MOV, so a valid additional document cannot carry an invalid minimum one; this follows from page 12, though no line says so.

The dropdown on the guide’s sample sheet lists the eight errors, an entry that asks the school to provide the MOVs of Functionality Indicator No. 1, and “Others” (p. 14). The guide explains the eight on pages 6 to 9 and does not explain the other two. The heading of the remark column tells the validator what comes next: after indicating the MOVs for correction, coordinate with the school directly and assist it in updating.

Marking both boxes for one MOV produces a Marking Error. Leaving the remark blank where an MOV is invalid, or where an indicator has no MOV, produces Validator’s Remarks Required.

The three counts

Each row carries three numbers, headed Initial Score, Invalid and Final Score, and the guide tells the validator to check them against the status (Vol. 2, p. 16). Its sample sheet shows how they relate. A school with an Initial Score of 12 and one Invalid has a Final Score of 11 and reads Functional. A school with 10 and one Invalid has a Final Score of 9; its row reads Validator’s Remarks Required until the remark is written. The Final Score, the count of scored minimum MOVs marked Valid, is what the status rests on. The sheet highlights the Initial Score in blue when it does not equal the Invalid count plus the Final Score, and the guide’s instruction for that case is “Check box marking require careful review and verification”.

The mark for a functional council is the tool’s: “at least 10 out of the 12 (at least 80%) Functionality Indicators based on the minimum MOVs submitted” (Encl. No. 2). A school’s own Yes answers are only where the count starts.

The nine statuses and what a school does at each

The Status column shows one of nine readings (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 17). Set the number of scored minimum MOVs a school submitted and the number found invalid, and the figure gives the status the sheet would show.

Figure

From valid MOVs to a status

What a school submitted is not what counts. The status follows the scored MOVs the validators found valid.

Has the school accomplished the online form?

YesNot yet

Scored minimum MOVs submitted:

12

of 12Of these, marked invalid by the validators:

4

8of 12 scored MOVs valid

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10
11. 11
12. 12

Partially Functional

Play a correction

Four documents marked invalid are replaced two at a time, and validated again.

The four results

Functional

If the school has 10 or more valid MOVs.

NextNothing more is needed for the count. The council keeps its documents, and keeps meeting: the status describes the papers of a period, not the years after it.

Partially Functional

If the school has fewer than 10 valid MOVs.

Next: the schoolThe school asks the SDO SGC Focal Person which documents were marked invalid, under which error, and whether it may replace them. The focal person decides.

Data Unsupported

If the school has accomplished the form but has not submitted any MOVs or has submitted MOVs that are all invalid. In such cases, there is no valid data to support the establishment of the SGC.

Next: the schoolThe school checks that its folder opens for anyone with the link and that each file is in its folder, then asks the focal person whether it may correct them.

No Existing SGC

If the school has not yet accomplished the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool (Online Form).

Next: the schoolThe school accomplishes the form before it closes on March 31, 2027. Until it does, the sheet reads as if the school had no council.

Five statuses of a sheet that is not finished

None of these is a result. Each stays on the sheet until the office named clears it.

Unvalidated

If the SDO has not yet validated the MOVs submitted by the school.

Next: the divisionThe division’s composite team validates the school’s MOVs.

Incomplete Validation

If only some MOVs have been validated and the validation process is not yet complete.

Next: the divisionThe validators finish the remaining MOVs, the ones without a score included.

Multiple Submissions Detected

If the school submitted or accomplished the SGC Form more than once.

Next: the regionThe RO SGC Focal Person clears the extra entries, after telling the division which schools and receiving its acknowledgment; the division then tells the school. No entry is cleared after March 31, 2027.

Marking Error

If the SDO marked both “Valid” and “Invalid” checkboxes for a single MOV link.

Next: the divisionThe validator clears one of the two checkboxes.

Validator’s Remarks Required

If there are invalid MOVs or no MOVs submitted for any of the indicators, and the required remarks in Column H were not provided.

Next: the divisionThe validator writes the remarks: which MOV fails, and for which of the guide’s errors.

Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 (September 22, 2026), Enclosure No. 1: SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Volume 2, pp. 12, 16 to 23 and 28 to 30; Enclosure No. 8

Four statuses are results.

Five statuses mean that the row is not finished. None is a result, and none should stand when the division certifies.

Three points are easy to miss.

“Partially Functional” replaces “Not Yet Functional”. The 2024 sheet for secondary schools used the older label (DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Encl. No. 3). The mark is the same: fewer than ten valid scored MOVs.

“Data Unsupported” is not a finding that the school has no council. It means that nothing the school sent could be counted. A school in this status has answered the form, which a school under No Existing SGC has not.

The school cannot see the sheet. View access is for the region and the division only (Vol. 2, p. 32). Yet the memorandum has the School Head, with the council, “Double-check the status of validated MOVs to ensure accuracy, completeness, and compliance” and “respond promptly to follow-up communications or clarifications from the SDO or RO” (Encl. No. 5, part A, items 5 and 6). The way to do both is to ask the division’s SGC focal person for the school’s status and remarks, in writing, and to keep the reply.

How a school corrects an invalid MOV

Who allows it. A school submits the form once. After that, “The SDO SGC Focal Person shall have the discretion to determine whether schools will be permitted to update or correct their submitted MOVs, subject to applicable policies and timelines” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 5, part B, item 7). Volume 1 tells the school the same from its side: “If any corrections or updates are needed before the submission deadline, respondents must coordinate with the SDO SGC Focal Person for guidance on the proper updating procedure” (p. 42). The five steps below “shall only be followed by schools if the SDO SGC Focal person allows the updating of MOVs” (Vol. 2, p. 20).

The five steps (Vol. 2, pp. 21 to 23):

1. List the MOVs to be corrected. “Carefully identify and enumerate the specific indicators and corresponding MOVs that require correction, as advised by the SDO SGC Focal person.”
2. Sign in and return to the folder. Use the school’s account and open the “SGC MOVs (2026 Roll-Out)” folder.
3. Delete the first file. “Access the folder of the concerned indicator whose MOVs require updating”, choose the file, and move it to the bin.
4. Upload the corrected file “into its corresponding indicator folder”.
5. Notify the division. “After uploading the corrected MOV, please notify the SDO SGC Focal person and request them to revalidate the updated MOVs.”

The folder and its link stay the same, so the form is not answered again. Give the corrected file the label the first one had, so that the validator finds it where the first one was. The validator then revalidates and updates the mark.

What a correction can be. The steps replace a file. They do not change what happened.

A new document dated in 2026 is within the coverage period, since the period has a start and no end. A council may therefore do in January 2027 what it had not done, and document it truthfully. What it may not do is date the paper back. The Validity Form binds the Co-Chairpersons, the Secretary and the School Head to the statement that the documents “are genuine”. The penalties for a false document are set out in DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026.

What the steps do not cover. They speak of MOVs “that require correction”, in the folder “of the concerned indicator”. The guide does not say whether a school that answered No to an indicator in the form may later add an MOV for it. Ask the focal person before uploading into a folder the school’s answer left empty.

The last day. Three texts bear on it, and none gives one national date for corrections.

The form’s deadline is March 31, 2027. After April 30, 2027 the validation sheet is closed and a revalidation can no longer be recorded. Between the two, a correction depends on the period the division prescribes. The safe course is to have every corrected file uploaded and reported before March 31, 2027, unless the division gives a later date in writing. A division may also set an earlier one; that deadline is the division’s, and it binds its schools.

Multiple submissions and how they are removed

A school that answers the form twice does not get the better of two answers. Its row reads Multiple Submissions Detected, and it has no result until one entry is removed.

Only one person can remove it. “The RO SGC Focal person shall be given access to the backend sheet of the Google Form to delete entries of schools with multiple submissions” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 28). The steps are:

1. The division reports the school, with its School ID and name.
2. “Prior to any deletion, the RO must inform the SDO SGC Focal person of the specific schools to be removed and obtain their acknowledgment before proceeding” (p. 28). The memorandum repeats the condition: deletion “shall only proceed upon the RO’s notification to the SDO of the list of schools recommended for deletion and the subsequent acknowledgment by the SDO” (Encl. No. 3).
3. The regional focal person finds the school’s entries in the backend sheet, checks which of them “are not using the school’s official DepEd Gmail account”, and clears those rows. The guide warns to clear, not delete, the rows, so that the sheet keeps its structure (p. 29).
4. The regional focal person notifies the division and records the deletion and its date in the Multiple Submission Deletion Log (pp. 30 and 31).
5. Where a school’s submission has been deleted, the division informs the school “that their submission has been deleted and that they need to resubmit using a new email account, ensuring this notification is done only once” (p. 30).

Step 5 sits beside another rule. The process flow says “the tool shall be accomplished only once”, with “an active and official DepEd email address” (Encl. No. 3), and step 3 is aimed at entries from accounts other than the school’s official one. The guide does not say which account a school uses when it is told to resubmit. Ask the focal person in writing, and submit once more only.

A second answer sent to fix a mistake in the first, or a teacher’s answer from a personal account alongside the school’s, corrects nothing: a correction is made in the Drive folder, with the focal person’s leave.

Monitoring, spot checks and certifications

The division’s monitoring sheet

Beside the Validation Sheet is the SDO Monitoring Sheet, which counts the division’s rows: “Submission Rate, No. of Schools Responded, No. of Schools with No Existing SGC, No. of Functional SGCs, No. of Partially Functional, No. of Unvalidated Schools, No. of Incomplete Validation, No. of Multiple Submissions, No. of Marking Errors and No. of Validators’ Remarks Needed” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 24). Its rows for elementary schools are view-only. One row is editable: the division’s updated data on the councils of its secondary schools, which the division gathers “using their own strategies for data collection” (p. 25; Encl. No. 3).

The region’s monitoring sheet and spot checks

The RO Monitoring Sheet gives each division’s counts: the submission rate, schools with no existing SGC, schools not yet responded, functional, partially functional and data-unsupported councils, and the five unfinished statuses (Vol. 2, p. 26). It is view-only, for the regional team as well.

The regional team’s power is to look. It “has access to both the SDO Validation and Monitoring Sheet and is authorized to conduct spot checks; however, they are not permitted to make changes to the validation status. If any discrepancies or issues are observed, the RO must inform the SDO SGC Focal person for appropriate action” (p. 25). The memorandum states the purpose of the spot check: “to ensure the validity, correctness, and accuracy of submitted data” (Encl. No. 5, part C, item 4). A region that disagrees with a mark sends its finding to the division, and the division’s validators decide. What the Field Technical Assistance Division does beyond this is in DepEd Regional Office Functions: What Each Division Does.

The Central Office checks each region’s progress monthly, “typically during the third week of each month” (Encl. No. 3), from October 2026 to May 2027 (Encl. No. 8).

The two certifications

Source: User Guide, Vol. 2, pp. 25 and 27; DepEd’s certification templates for the 2026 roll-out; DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 3 and 8.

Both certifications carry the sentence that the Central Office “may make any inquiries which they consider necessary or to further verify the information”. The signatory attests that the MOVs are genuine, which is why a validator who doubts a document asks the school for the original or visits.

A division cannot certify rows that are not finished. Before May 5, 2027, no row should read Unvalidated, Incomplete Validation, Multiple Submissions Detected, Marking Error or Validator’s Remarks Required. Each has its own last day: a duplicate can be deleted only until March 31, and a mark or a remark can be entered only until the sheets close on April 30.

Who may open which sheet

“The SGC Functionality Assessment Tool, including the validation and monitoring sheets, must be treated with strict confidentiality”, and the region “shall ensure that access to these tools is limited only to authorized personnel at each governance level” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 32).

Source: User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 32.

The memorandum’s list of links gives editor access to the “3-5 SDO SGC Composite Team Members” named in the directory the division sent to the Central Office (Encl. No. 9), where the guide says three. Either way the editors are the persons the division named, signing in with the accounts it listed: “only these accounts were granted access by the Central Office” (Vol. 2, p. 11).

The links to the form and the sheets are sent privately, region to division to school. A school gets its form link from its division’s SGC focal person. How the levels relate is in Who Decides What in DepEd? RA 9155’s Five Levels.

The dates

Source: DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 8. As of November 13, 2026, no later issuance of the Central Office has moved these dates.

What this means for school heads

Validate your own folder first. The memorandum requires a school-level review before the one submission. Run it as a validator would: one person who did not prepare the files opens each folder, applies the six tests, and names the error for any file that fails. The council’s Secretary and the Designated Co-Chairperson then fix the cause. A file that fails in the school costs an afternoon; a file that fails in the division costs a point, unless the focal person allows a correction.

Fix causes, not files. A failure can repeat. One old letterhead puts “School Governing Council” on every document. One habit of approving matters by a show of hands leaves every resolution unsigned. One template without a quorum line fails every set of minutes. Change the letterhead, the habit and the template, and next year’s papers pass without a review.

Sign resolutions on paper, at the meeting. The voting members are in the room on the day the council decides. Have the resolution printed before the meeting ends, and have each voting member sign it then; sign it yourself the same day. A resolution sent around for signatures weeks later risks “Incomplete signatures”.

Keep the two questions apart. Whether the council has validly decided is a question of the order: notice a week ahead, a quorum, two-thirds of all members, a written and signed decision. Whether the paper counts in the assessment is a question of the guide. Meet the stricter of the two on every point, and the council’s papers serve both.

Ask for your status in writing. The sheet is closed to schools. Write to the division’s SGC focal person after you submit, and again when validation is under way: what is the school’s status, which MOVs were marked invalid, under which error, and may the school correct them, by what date? File the answers with the council’s records.

Read the status for what it says. Functional with remarks still has documents to mend. Partially Functional names how many scored documents failed. Data Unsupported can have one cause that runs through every file, or a folder the validators could not open. No Existing SGC means the form was never answered. If the row shows one of the five unfinished statuses, the next step is the division’s or the region’s, and a polite written follow-up is in order as March 31 approaches.

Do not answer twice, and do not date back. A second submission freezes the school’s row until the region deletes it. A paper dated before it was made is a false document, and the Validity Form carries your signature. A council can miss two indicators and still be functional; a truthful No costs less than either mistake.

Use the result. The tool’s result “shall be used as information in identifying priority areas that may need support and assistance from the different governance levels” (Encl. No. 2). An invalid mark that reflects missing work, not a faulty paper, belongs on the council’s next agenda and, where it needs resources, in the Annual Implementation Plan. The validated status is also the honest basis for rating indicator 24 of the School-Based Management checklist, “The school has a functional School Governance Council (SGC)” (DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Annex A); see DepEd Revised SBM: DO 007, s. 2024 and the Self-Assessment and DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC.

For validators. Open every column, not only the twelve. Mark one box for each sub-indicator. Write a remark for every Invalid and for every indicator without an MOV, and choose the error by its definition on pages 7 to 9, so that the school knows what to fix. Mark the scored minimum MOV on its own merits when only the additional ones fail, and say which ones in the remark. Tell the school early: the guide’s fourth step is technical assistance, and the order makes “relevant, timely and appropriate technical assistance to the schools” a duty of the division (DO 026, s. 2022, Part VI.B, item 8).

Where it sits in the standards. Keeping a council’s records in order, in paper and in a shared drive, is the work of strand 2.1 of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads, records management, adopted by DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020. Applying the order to the council is strand 5.2, management of school organizations. See PPSSH Domain 2 for the NASH: Managing School Operations and PPSSH Domain 5 for the NASH: Building Connections.

How the NASH may test this

The items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

Question 1

Indicator 2.1.2, Records management. Career Stage 2, Situational, Moderate.

You are the school head of a public elementary school in an island barangay. Two days after you submitted the online form for the School Governance Council’s functionality assessment, the council’s Secretary tells you that the shared folder for the recommendation to the Local School Board holds a resolution of the PTA board, uploaded by mistake. The council’s own signed resolution is in the Secretary’s records. A teacher offers to answer the form again from another account, with a corrected folder. The form stays open for three more weeks, and the division has not yet validated your school. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Have the Secretary record the error in the council’s files and leave the folder as submitted, so that the validators judge the school on what it sent.
• B. Accept the teacher’s offer and answer the form again from the other account, so that the validators receive a clean submission with a corrected folder link.
• C. Ask the division’s SGC focal person whether the school may update the folder, so that the PTA’s paper is replaced with the council’s resolution before validation.
• D. Report the wrong document to the division’s SGC focal person and wait for the validators’ remarks before touching the folder, so that nothing changes without notice.

Answer and explanation: Question 1

Best answer: C. Points: A = 1, B = 0, C = 3, D = 2.

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It records the error and keeps the single submission, but it tells no one at the division and leaves a document the school knows to be the PTA’s where the council’s own should be.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). A school answers the form once. A second answer breaks that rule and leaves the school’s row at Multiple Submissions Detected until the region deletes an entry.
• C (3 points, Relational). It keeps the one submission, uses the channel the roll-out provides for corrections, acts only with the focal person’s leave, and aims at having the council’s own resolution in the folder when the division validates, so that the school’s record matches what the council did.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). It is honest, goes to the right person and changes nothing without leave, but it does not ask to correct the folder when the error is already known and three weeks remain.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 2 expectations because indicator 2.1.2 asks the school head to manage school data and information, using technology, so that operations run well. The form “allows only a single submission”, and for corrections before the deadline “respondents must coordinate with the SDO SGC Focal Person” (User Guide, Vol. 1, p. 42), who has “the discretion to determine whether schools will be permitted to update or correct their submitted MOVs” (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 5). With that leave, the school replaces the file and tells the focal person that the corrected one is in place (Vol. 2, pp. 20 to 23). Reporting the error and waiting for remarks uses the right channel and leaves the wrong record in place.

Indicator 2.1.2: Manage school data and information using technology, including ICT, to ensure efficient and effective school operations.

Sources: Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 3 and 5; SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Vol. 1, p. 42, and Vol. 2, pp. 7, 17 and 20 to 23.

Question 2

Indicator 5.2.1, Management of school organizations. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.

Before submitting for the 2026 assessment of elementary school councils, a school head finds a council resolution that every voting member and the school head signed with electronic signatures. The order on School Governance Councils requires that a decision be in writing and signed by the members. Which statement best explains how the validators’ guide treats the resolution?

• A. It will be marked valid, because the order asks only that the members sign a decision; it names no manner in which they must sign.
• B. It will be marked invalid, because validators accept a resolution only when it is signed by hand; on this the guide asks more than the order does.
• C. It will not be counted, because the guide asks for wet signatures on a resolution; the council’s decision is void until it is signed again.
• D. It will be marked valid, because electronic signatures are accepted on every document a council submits; the manner of signing is the council’s choice.

Answer and explanation: Question 2

Best answer: B. Points: A = 1, B = 3, C = 2, D = 0.

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It reads the order correctly, but it misses that the assessment’s guide, not the order alone, decides what a validator accepts.
• B (3 points, Relational). It joins the two texts: the guide sets what the assessment accepts, and on signatures it asks for more than the order does.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It has the validator’s mark and its reason right, but it gives the guide a power no text gives it. The guide tells validators what to accept; it does not say that a decision signed another way is void.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). The guide’s allowance for electronic signatures covers “all documents except resolutions”.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 5.2.1 asks for knowledge and understanding of the policies and guidelines on managing school organizations, which includes knowing what each text governs. The User Guide says “Electronic signatures may be accepted for all documents except resolutions. Resolutions must be duly approved and signed by the voting members and the School Head using wet signatures” (Vol. 2, p. 9). The order requires that a decision “be in writing, signed by the SGC members” (DO 026, s. 2022, Part V.M) and is silent on how they sign. Calling the decision void has the mark right but turns the assessment’s test into a rule of the order.

Indicator 5.2.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policies and guidelines on managing school organizations, such as learner organizations, faculty clubs and parent-teacher associations, in support of the attainment of institutional goals.

Sources: DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Part V.M (Decisions); SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Vol. 2, pp. 6 and 9; Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. No. 5.

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

Frequently asked questions

Who validates the MOVs of the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool?

The SDO SGC Composite Team of the school’s division, chaired by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent, validates every MOV on the SDO Validation Sheet. The regional team may spot-check but may not change a validation, and the Central Office consolidates the certified results (DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Encl. Nos. 3 and 5; User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 25).

Does the School Head have to sign an SGC resolution?

For the 2026 assessment, yes. The User Guide counts a resolution only when it is “signed by the voting members and the School Head using wet signatures” (Vol. 2, p. 9). DO 026, s. 2022 asks only that a decision be “signed by the SGC members” (Part V.M), so the head’s signature is a requirement of the assessment and not of the order.

Can a school replace an MOV after submitting the form?

Only if the division’s SGC focal person allows it. The school then deletes the first file from its Drive folder, uploads the corrected one into the same folder, and asks the focal person to revalidate (User Guide, Vol. 2, pp. 20 to 23). The school does not answer the form again.

What does “Data Unsupported” mean?

The school answered the form, but it submitted no MOVs or every MOV it submitted was marked invalid, so “there is no valid data to support the establishment of the SGC” (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 17). It differs from No Existing SGC, which is the reading for a school that has not answered the form.

Are documents from before 2022 accepted?

No. Validators treat an activity “conducted June 17, 2022 onwards” as within coverage and one from 2018 to 2021 as outside it (User Guide, Vol. 2, p. 8). Volume 1 tells schools that only MOVs “produced or created from School Year 2022–2023 onward” are valid (p. 7), and a document dated from August 22, 2022 meets both.

Sources

DepEd orders

• DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022, Implementing Guidelines on the Establishment of School Governance Council, June 17, 2022: Part III (definitions), Part V (General Purpose; V.C, structure; V.D, composition; V.E, officers; V.G, name; V.H, creation; V.I, election; V.L, removal; V.M, meetings, decisions, storage of documents and limitations) and Part VI (roles of the School Head and the SDO).
• DepEd Order No. 034, s. 2022, School Calendar and Activities for the School Year 2022-2023, July 11, 2022: item 2.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024, Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System, May 16, 2024: Annex A, indicator 24.
• DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Enhanced School Improvement Planning (SIP) Process and the School Report Card (SRC), September 29, 2015.
• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads, September 7, 2020: indicators 2.1.2 and 5.2.1.

Memoranda of the Office of the Undersecretary for Human Resource and Organizational Development (since 2026, Human Resource and Organizational Development and Infrastructure)

• Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750, Roll-Out of the School Governance Council (SGC) Functionality Assessment Tool for Public Elementary Schools, September 22, 2026, as circulated by DepEd Region VIII (Regional Memorandum No. 1310, s. 2026, October 6, 2026): Encl. No. 2 (printable tool), Encl. No. 3 (process flow), Encl. No. 5 (roles and responsibilities in the implementation of the tool), Encl. Nos. 6 and 7 (division and regional sheets), Encl. No. 8 (timeline) and Encl. No. 9 (access to the links).
• SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Encl. No. 1 to the memorandum, at tinyurl.com/DMSGCES: Volume 2, Validate and Monitor, September 2026, pp. 5 to 32; Volume 1, Prepare and Respond, Version 2, pp. 7, 10, 41 and 42.
• Memorandum DM-OUHROD-2024-0696, Revised SGC Functionality Assessment Tool for Secondary Schools, April 11, 2024, as circulated by the Schools Division Office of Muntinlupa City (Division Memorandum No. 145, s. 2024): Encl. No. 3 (Report 2).

DepEd’s templates for the 2026 roll-out

• Sample formats of the MOVs (notice of meeting, minutes with attendance sheet, resolution, documentation report, transmittal letter, official list of members, organizational chart, certificate of membership), at tinyurl.com/SGCMOVTemp.
• SGC Functionality Assessment Tool Validity Form 2026, at tinyurl.com/SGCVF2026.
• Certification templates for the SDO Composite Team and the RO Composite Team, linked from the monitoring sheets (User Guide, Vol. 2, pp. 25 and 27).

School Governance Council series

• School Governance Council (SGC): Complete DepEd Guide
• SGC Functionality Assessment Tool: Indicators and MOVs
• How to Submit the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool
• SGC MOV Validation: Why Documents Are Marked Invalid (this post)
• SGC Minutes, Resolutions and Notices: How to Write Them

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2022; Memorandum DM-OUHRODI-2026-3750 and its enclosures; the SGC Functionality Assessment Tool User Guide, Volumes 1 and 2; DepEd’s sample formats, Validity Form and certification templates for the 2026 roll-out.